This is the crux. If you're a market-loving conservative, the best way of getting that value and efficiency is by putting a profit incentive in. They definitely weren't efficient under the old nationalised systems either.Roujin wrote:It seems to have been the answer to none of our woes as far as i can tell. I don't understand how letting private, profit driven business run public services and utilities wont result in a situation where the public just become customers from which as much money is to be extracted as possible to keep the shareholders happy. Hospitals, rails, roads, even water and electricity provision are just huge money sinks that should try to be run as efficiently as possible for the benefit of the taxpayer but under no circumstances should they be expected to generate or put profit ahead of customer service or investment in maintenance of the infrastructure. Imo and all that.
Hundreds of tonnes of human body parts and medical waste is piling up after a disposal company working for the NHS has struggled to incinerate it.
Unison's head of health, Sara Gorton, said the situation was "simply horrific", saying it was "unlikely that such a distressing situation would have happened had the service remained in-house".
She added: "Ethics and decent behaviour aside, it begs the question as to why services that are such a crucial part of the NHS are ever outsourced in the first place."
Diluted Dante wrote:"If people weren't forced to work at this fuckawful job they wouldn't." What? This is a bad thing?And, if UBI were set at a civilised level, it would mess with the labour market. Who would want to work at a crappy job if the government sent out healthy cheques on a regular basis?
JonB wrote:The point I take from that is that you can't introduce a basic income without undermining how the economy works in other ways. I see that as a good thing, though, because the way the economy works will need to change more dramatically at some point, and UBI could be a catalyst. Or, if it's implemented the wrong way it could make things worse.
The shame of socialism is that the wildly talented are restrained from profitably improving the lives of the people around them, and perhaps continents away
Crucial about all this is that the commercial seers who get the future right will grow stunningly rich for being right. The more convenient life is, the more unequal are the living. But as opposed to a sign of hardship, the happier truth is that life is truly cruel when the talented aren’t getting rich. That’s when we know that no one is devising ways to make our lives easier, cheaper, healthier, more productive, and everything else good. Life without rising inequality is very much like life would be with socialism.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!